<p>I agree with bud - enrich and enliven? no. diversity of background, ethnicity, region - yes. These days, they all want low acceptance rates, because that somehow makes them go higher in the US News rankings. Doesn’t make them better schools, just have lower acceptance rates. For instance, Harvard engineering isn’t better than Cornell’s, but Harvard is overall harder to get in to. It’s a game.</p>
<p>Well, those things do enrich and enliven as well. Also, people who would want to go Harvard are mostly less gungho on engineering. Students who want engineering will often self-select and apply to schools that have a really strong engineering and technology scene so that isn’t a good example. Harvard is harder to get into because it attracts tons of high stats. students who want something else. Also Harvard really excels at natural and physical sciences. Do you really think it just randomly picks a “paper-based” high achieving class based on ethnicity, region, and socioeconomics, and statistics. No… for example, it’s allure and recruiting pulls crap tons people into science who win international math and science olympiads, intel competitions, people who did putnam in HS, etc, not just people of various backgrounds w/over 1500 on the SAT and long resumes. Having people that have already achieved that much in their field so early adds to the intellectual vitality of the campus which also often lends itself to the type of campus environment it wants. Outside of science, it tends to pick up more politically active(or even activist students) students as well. You don’t just bring in hordes of these people through magic (while other schools that draw applicants and even admitted with the same SATs and long resume w/who knows what do not tend to ultimately attract the crowd with those particular types of achievements or orientations). It’s clearly looking to create a certain type of community (which I think it may use interviews to screen for) that is alive and enriched in particular ways by that type of student body while other schools have a base that they tend to attract and recruit, nonetheless, all with high stats. Also, clearly high stats. are not enough to boost the ranking. Several schools have increased those dramatically with little to no movement (and then there is also JHU, which is, I believe less “paper-based” selective than top 20 schools below it except Emory and Berkeley I think). </p>
<p>Some have stayed about the same and moved up slightly (Chicago). There are also ways to get more applications, admit roughly the same type of student as before, and move up because the admit rate went down (this appears to be the case with Chicago). Chicago played the game and yet most of the students who went there and were admitted there are still not the same ones that yielded to say, Duke. I think places like Chicago and Princeton enjoy the intensity of their institution as a result of the types of students they get and caliber of the curriculum, however want to play the admissions game as well so will get as many apps. as possible and try to admit and yield most of the same types as before (maybe with the same or even slightly higher stats. Their stats are so high now, that it really no longer matters if their SAT/GPA of incoming class continue to increase, they just need to get more apps. to push the admit rate down. These places no longer need to discuss how every year “the class gets better” because it’s not really necessary or even true for that matter.). Not all high stats applicants are equal (in mindset at least). Most of the very best institutions know this. They aren’t like “last year our students had a 1500 average, so this year we want to have a 1520” however they may say “Last year we had 32k applicants, and this year we want 33 or 34k” with the intent of admitting the exact same number and type of students (it’s a win, win for them). When you can get a math olympiad winner or some “X medalist” from another country with a 1500 (or even in the mid to high 14s), who cares? Many places just want this sort of talent with relatively high stats. and low admissions rates. They know what type of students contribute well to the historical institutional character, prestige, and community, and know how to get them.</p>
<p>The effect of lowering admit rate in USNWR rankings is really minimal. In fact, the weight of student selectivity (test scores, admit rates, etc.) in the overall USNWR rankings has declined (for instance, from 15% in 2013 to 12.5% in 2014). Moreover, the effective weight of acceptance rate in the rankings was only 1.25% (it was 1.5% in 2013). If they had given more weight to test scores and admit rates, Vanderbilt should already have been in the top 10. The USNWR rankings are particularly notorious for their service to the status quo of American higher education.</p>
<p>Yes, I suspect that as well. Also, it pays to have a high endowment for USNews Week (makes sense because things like faculty compensation contribute to the ranking). Also, I don’t know if Vanderbilt would have been in the top 10 because many schools between 10-15 are very close statistically but have more money. But I’m going to be blunt. I think USNewsweek rankings use kind of a faulty methodology, but after having compared the curricula and coursework (that could be found online somewhere) of various schools, some of the ones with lower or similar stats that are in the top 5,10, or even 15, deserve to be there. There are indeed very intense differences in the standards, intensity and expectations for undergraduates at these institutions. Some also tend to be much more innovative (like Harvard creating integrated introductory science sequences being reoriented toward pre-meds and life science oriented people). Even the grade inflated institutions (Stanford, Yale, Brown) have quite intense and rich academic environments that differ from the other schools that have caught up to it in freshman stats. Perhaps USNWR understands this (the general idea that schools’ freshman admissions caliber is moving much faster than the institutions’ academic caliber). </p>
<p>Yeah, but I’ve looked at some of the things that many of these schools have done in terms of undergraduate education (especially in my fields of interest which reside in the sciences) and am like “wow!” despite loving my alma mater. Some of the schools that have higher freshman stats than us have the same caliber academics (or even less rigorous in some cases. If you switch the two students, they would not feel any difference in academic stress levels. My roommate sophomore year came from Northwestern and said he felt no difference at all. Although, I bet if he were a physical or computational science major, he would have, and perhaps a chem. major) while some are FAR above and I am willing to admit this. I know most people probably wouldn’t like their school to become different academically and believe that it’s good enough, but I am the type who would have enjoyed more intensity across the board so would really have appreciated what some of those places are doing (they do it in a way that keeps it challenging, but stimulating, so that it looks more interesting and inspirational, moreso than something to be reduced to something that is mere part of the “grind”, something that students constantly brag about in a more or less complaint-oriented tone) because for me, having “good professors” and the stereotypical type of challenge wasn’t good enough (an instructor can be the wrong kind of challenging for example. Luckily, I’ve had most of mine be quite good, but I don’t know that most people have and I think some places do a better job here…). </p>
<p>Also, I think the metrics put many state flagships at an unfair disadvantage and I’ve seen the movements they’ve been making in undergraduate education and am extremely impressed. Many are implementing innovation at high levels that much of the top 20-25 are not and I think that students with the stats. that students in the top 20-25 schools deserve that level of innovation in their undergraduate experience as they may benefit from it as well (the top privates seem to be moving slowly, but surely toward wider implementation of such models). However, the metrics say that “stats, reputation, prestige, and money” matter and they do, but I wish there were better ways to measure the UG educational experience (and student surveys don’t really work, because students who had a good time, had some good teachers, and were challenged, but mostly not, will rate the experience highly even if they didn’t learn a lot). Right now it’s kind of “which places are the best to live at for 4 years”. Regardless of what I think, many may somewhat successfully argue that the actual undergraduate educational experience (especially the in-class part) as a general concept has become something just shy of irrelevant (especially with the advent of say, online venues that make learning coursework type learning more convenient and easier. Needless to say, the college classroom experience beyond completing tasks becomes less relevant and the out of class experience is much more important. I placed a premium on both.).</p>
<p>Bottom line is to pick the school that is best for YOU - in terms of areas of study, types of students, etc. Rankings are stupid. Buying into school’s tactics to get to the top of those rankings is also stupid. Go somewhere you enjoy, do well, get a job. The only thing that matters is the last thing you did, so try to keep debt low and find an area of study that is employable.</p>
<p>That’s my general sentiment. After researching, I realized that I should have kept a more open mind when applying (I applied to 2 elite privates, one an LAC, and 3 non-elites except for 2 elite HBCUs). If it wasn’t for the financial aid package (a full ride in my case), I’m sure I would have been more than happy at any of those state flagships I alluded to (one would be Georgia Tech in my case, which I would have been able to attend for free). I think the rank and prestige and general aurora of some schools is often overwhelming or very influential especially during first visits. You may “fall in love” (I honestly never “felt” this when visiting or considering any school to be honest. I looked at them somewhat objectively. Many of the places I was interested in just had a nice campus, reputable academic programs in my area, and a solid EC vibe. There was no famous school that I visited or researched in enough depth to truly wow me. I already knew they had certain reputations. Now I know some contributors to reputation are relevant, and some much lesser so in terms of what I was looking for) during a visit, but later on realize that something else could have been better in some ways (even if you are very happy with where you are). </p>
<p>It’s best to do kind of in dept research first before getting caught up in the prestige or atmosphere wars. This includes academics which I know many applicants will kind of overlook, especially considering elites. They seem to just accept that “it must be great in this arena right?”, and yes it may be “better” than many other places, but if that aspect really matters, you should go in understanding what you want out of the education and dig and find to see if the school can offer it to you instead of saying, “it’s very selective, so everything must be great”. Selectivity tells you how attractive the school is, but not for what reasons and it also doesn’t really reveal the school’s strengths beyond the allure. For example, I think, unfortunately, many students still will choose a school with higher prestige or rank even if they get into another prestigious school that is better in their areas of interest (EC or academic) and that’s kind of sad (this is unless the schools are starkly different, such as public vs. private. Even then, I would think twice. Does it really matter if my classes are small? What if the instruction is at a higher level at the institution w/larger classes? As is the case for places like Michigan when compared to several privates for example). Even sadder, is the fact that they didn’t know or care. Or you’ll have the pre-professional that will choose the “more laid back” (often codes for easier as opposed to “collaborative”) institution as opposed to the one that will train them better in their field of interest (so for these folks it’s kind of like, first, is it prestigious, second, does it have inflation or only moderate challenge vs. my abilities so that I can prop up my record), so therefore you get threads constantly asking if a certain elite has inflation or deflation and “how hard are the courses at blah, blah, blah?”</p>
<p>As for employable, if you’re smart and get good mentoring and guidance at your institution, it has been found that almost any area of study is employable. Some places (most of the top privates in fact) seem to get very solid liberal arts majors that do something else with the skills they acquired and the networking they did while earning a degree (seriously, some of these people, aside from the ones that go to grad. school end up with successful start-ups. The right environment can motivate and inspire people to make something out of what appears to most, to be nothing).</p>